Because there is some criticism from progressives of this President for his upcoming decision to send more troops to Afghanistan we invite such critics to read formerly Sen. Obama’s speech on Alfghanistan from the 2008 campaign.  Bush already lost the war in Afghanistan when he redirected troops and focus from the region to Iraq (a war that never should have been waged) at a time when we were very close to succeeding.  Now President Obama must fix the mess that Bush left and the new President must do so in the name of homeland and national security.  Obama is doing exactly what he said he would do during his campaign, refocusing on the real threat to this nation, Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Feel free to disagree with the increase in troops on ideological grounds but do not call foul or claim surprise or ignorance of his decision because he repeatedly laid it out throughout the 2008 campaign.  Americans did not elect this president to do specifically what you (singular progressive) wanted him to do we elected him to do what he said he would do before we elected him.  Now allow him to do it.  For all of those who need to be reminded see an excerpt of candidate Obama’s plan for Afghanistan below. 

In fact – as should have been apparent to President Bush and Senator McCain – the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was. That’s why the second goal of my new strategy will be taking the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari are recording messages to their followers and plotting more terror. The Taliban controls parts of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan that is probably no farther from their old Afghan sanctuary than a train ride from Washington to Philadelphia. If another attack on our homeland comes, it will likely come from the same region where 9/11 was planned. And yet today, we have five times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan.

Senator McCain said – just months ago – that “Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq.” I could not disagree more. Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq. That’s what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said earlier this month. And that’s why, as President, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win.

I will send AT LEAST two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions – with fewer restrictions – from NATO allies. I will focus on training Afghan security forces and supporting an Afghan judiciary, with more resources and incentives for American officers who perform these missions. Just as we succeeded in the Cold War by supporting allies who could sustain their own security, we must realize that the 21st century’s frontlines are not only on the field of battle – they are found in the training exercise near Kabul, in the police station in Kandahar, and in the rule of law in Herat.

Moreover, lasting security will only come if we heed Marshall’s lesson, and help Afghans grow their economy from the bottom up. That’s why I’ve proposed an additional $1 billion in non-military assistance each year, with meaningful safeguards to prevent corruption and to make sure investments are made – not just in Kabul – but out in Afghanistan’s provinces. As a part of this program, we’ll invest in alternative livelihoods to poppy-growing for Afghan farmers, just as we crack down on heroin trafficking. We cannot lose Afghanistan to a future of narco-terrorism. The Afghan people must know that our commitment to their future is enduring, because the security of Afghanistan and the United States is shared.

The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won’t. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights.

Make no mistake: we can’t succeed in Afghanistan or secure our homeland unless we change our Pakistan policy. We must expect more of the Pakistani government, but we must offer more than a blank check to a General who has lost the confidence of his people. It’s time to strengthen stability by standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistani people. That’s why I’m cosponsoring a bill with Joe Biden and Richard Lugar to triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people and to sustain it for a decade, while ensuring that the military assistance we do provide is used to take the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda. We must move beyond a purely military alliance built on convenience, or face mounting popular opposition in a nuclear-armed nation at the nexus of terror and radical Islam.

Only a strong Pakistani democracy can help us move toward my third goal – securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states. One of the terrible ironies of the Iraq War is that President Bush used the threat of nuclear terrorism to invade a country that had no active nuclear program. But the fact that the President misled us into a misguided war doesn’t diminish the threat of a terrorist with a weapon of mass destruction – in fact, it has only increased it.

In those years after World War II, we worried about the deadly atom falling into the hands of the Kremlin. Now, we worry about 50 tons of highly enriched uranium – some of it poorly secured – at civilian nuclear facilities in over forty countries. Now, we worry about the breakdown of a non-proliferation framework that was designed for the bipolar world of the Cold War. Now, we worry – most of all – about a rogue state or nuclear scientist transferring the world’s deadliest weapons to the world’s most dangerous people: terrorists who won’t think twice about killing themselves and hundreds of thousands in Tel Aviv or Moscow, in London or New York.

We cannot wait any longer to protect the American people. I’ve made this a priority in the Senate, where I worked with Republican Senator Dick Lugar to pass a law accelerating our pursuit of loose nuclear materials. I’ll lead a global effort to secure all loose nuclear materials around the world during my first term as President. And I’ll develop new defenses to protect against the 21st century threat of biological weapons and cyber-terrorism – threats that I’ll discuss in more detail tomorrow.

Beyond taking these immediate, urgent steps, it’s time to send a clear message: America seeks a world with no nuclear weapons. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we must retain a strong deterrent. But instead of threatening to kick them out of the G-8, we need to work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert; to dramatically reduce the stockpiles of our nuclear weapons and material; to seek a global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons; and to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global. By keeping our commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we’ll be in a better position to press nations like North Korea and Iran to keep theirs. In particular, it will give us more credibility and leverage in dealing with Iran.

We cannot tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of nations that support terror. Preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is a vital national security interest of the United States. No tool of statecraft should be taken off the table, but Senator McCain would continue a failed policy that has seen Iran strengthen its position, advance its nuclear program, and stockpile 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. I will use all elements of American power to pressure the Iranian regime, starting with aggressive, principled and direct diplomacy – diplomacy backed with strong sanctions and without preconditions.

There will be careful preparation. I commend the work of our European allies on this important matter, and we should be full partners in that effort. Ultimately the measure of any effort is whether it leads to a change in Iranian behavior. That’s why we must pursue these tough negotiations in full coordination with our allies, bringing to bear our full influence – including, if it will advance our interests, my meeting with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing.

We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives. If you refuse, then we will ratchet up the pressure, with stronger unilateral sanctions; stronger multilateral sanctions in the Security Council, and sustained action outside the UN to isolate the Iranian regime. That’s the diplomacy we need. And the Iranians should negotiate now; by waiting, they will only face mounting pressure.

The surest way to increase our leverage against Iran in the long-run is to stop bankrolling its ambitions. That will depend on achieving my fourth goal: ending the tyranny of oil in our time.

Tomorrow, Thanksgiving Day, Americans across the country will sit down together, count our blessings, and give thanks for our families and our loved ones.

American families reflect the diversity of this great nation. No two are exactly alike, but there is a common thread they each share.

Our families are bound together through times of joy and times of grief. They shape us, support us, instill the values that guide us as individuals, and make possible all that we achieve.

So tomorrow, I’ll be giving thanks for my family — for all the wisdom, support, and love they have brought into my life.

But tomorrow is also a day to remember those who cannot sit down to break bread with those they love.

The soldier overseas holding down a lonely post and missing his kids. The sailor who left her home to serve a higher calling. The folks who must spend tomorrow apart from their families to work a second job, so they can keep food on the table or send a child to school.

We are grateful beyond words for the service and hard work of so many Americans who make our country great through their sacrifice. And this year, we know that far too many face a daily struggle that puts the comfort and security we all deserve painfully out of reach.

So when we gather tomorrow, let us also use the occasion to renew our commitment to building a more peaceful and prosperous future that every American family can enjoy.

It seems like a lifetime ago that a crowd met on a frigid February morning in Springfield, Illinois to set out on an improbable course to change our nation.

In the years since, Michelle and I have been blessed with the support and friendship of the millions of Americans who have come together to form this ongoing movement for change.

You have been there through victories and setbacks. You have given of yourselves beyond measure. You have enabled all that we have accomplished — and you have had the courage to dream yet bigger dreams for what we can still achieve.

So in this season of thanks giving, I want to take a moment to express my gratitude to you, and my anticipation of the brighter future we are creating together.

With warmest wishes for a happy holiday season from my family to yours,

President Barack Obama

While Americans are repeatedly being asked to take it on the chin by our government a bill like ”Make Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act” just make sense.  The American people bailed out Wall Street to the tune of $750 billion and Wall Street repays them by raising the insurance rates, imposing abusive and deceptive credit card fees, and continuing the same practice it engaged in to get us into this maelstrom of a crap storm.  The American people need fair treatment and reciprocity.  Wall Street has pretty much operated with impunity and without repercussions even though it took us into the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression.  The bill currently being worked on by Democratic Reps. Peter DeFazio (Ore.) and Ed Perlmutter (Colo.), would impose a 0.25 percent tax on the sale and purchase of financial instruments such as stocks, options, derivatives and futures.  The bill would raise $150 billion in tax revenue per year half of which would go to paying down the deficit and the other half would go to creating JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.   See a description of the bill by The Hill below:

The bill, a copy of which was obtained by The Hill, is titled the “Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act of 2009.”……..

Half of the $150 billion in tax revenue would go toward reducing the deficit, while the other half would be deposited in a “Job Creation Reserve” to support new jobs.

The job fund would be available to offset the additional costs of the 2009 highway bill and other legislation that creates jobs.

This is a common sense solution that may make too much sense for Congress.

The Senate health care reform bill has been widdled down so much in terms of making the insurance companies accountable and inserting competition into the marketplace that former governor of Vermont Howard Dean says that the bill is useless in terms of making insurance affordable for all Americans if it does not contain a public option.  According to Dean, and we agree, the Senate bill contains no reasonable cost containment mechanism for the insurance companies therefore permiting them to charge one customer 300 percent more than that same customer’s neighbor.  Without a robust public option the insurance industry can continue doing what it is doing but worse .  Need we forget about the credit card industry and how it responded to even th eslightest bit of regulation by engaging in unscrupulous and deceptive practices even more.

Most people are aware of the horse trading that goes on amongst Senators and House members behind the scenes within their respective bodies and things are no different with this historic health care reform vote.  However, one Senator takes it to a new level.  Sen. Ben Nelson demanded, in return for his vote on Saturday to permit the Health Care Reform bill to be debated on the floor, that the repeal of the anti-trust exemption for insurance companies be removed from the bill.  Other Senators also made demands in return for their vote.  Sen. Landrieu received an earmark to the tune of $100-300M.  The earmark increases Medicaid subsidies to states that have been stricken with a natural disaster in the last seven years.  Sen. Lincoln is rumored to have received a revival of funding ($50M annually) for abstinence education.  A bill originally enacted by the Bush administration.  But Sen. Nelson was absolutely blatant in protecting his most important constituents, the insurance industry.  At least with Lincoln and Landrieu the trade was for something that arguably benefits the people of their respective states.  But Nelson trade benefits the insurance companies only.  We have an underlying public policy in this country that monopolies are BAD and do not contribute to a competitive, thriving, and innovative marketplace.  Congress has enacted a bevy of laws stemming from that tenet.  Therefore, Nelson using his bargaining chip to keep the isurance industry from abiding by the same anti-trust laws that all other businesses abide by speaks volumes about his priorities.

Quote from Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) on This Week with George Stepanopolous about the public option:

No, no. I mean, we could negotiate a public option of some sort that I might look at, but I don’t want a big government, Washington-run operation that would undermine the — the insurance that — private insurance that 200 million Americans now have profitability of private insurance companies.

Sen. Nelson has received over $2 million from the insurance industry in Nebraska.  Two insurance companies, Blue Cross and Blue Shield along with United Healthcare,  control almost seventy percent of the Nebraska insurance market.  Such pertinent facts shed some light on why Nelson insisted on the removal of  the language repealing the anti-trust exemption currently enjoyed by the insurance industry that was in the health care bill prior to Saturday’s vote and his position regarding the public option.

For those of you who missed Attorney General Holder’s testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee it was an interesting exchange.  Republican Senators Sessions, Kyle, and Graham were the most vocal in their opposition to the Attorney General’s decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in an Article III court (federal court created by Article III of the Constitution) as oppose to a military tribunal.  The crux of the Republicans arguments are that KSM has promised to plead guilty in front of a military tribunal so why not allow him to do just that and trying KSM in the federal courts makes New York less safe.  As for making New York less safe, New York will always be a target as it has been since the 1993 World Trade Center attack.  So it’s hard to believe that a maximum security trial would make it more of a target.  In fact, one would think that the increased security would make it less of a target.  As for the wishes and preferences of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Holder responded by saying that a terrorist does not get to decide where he is tried that is my job.  Correct, that is the job of the Attorney General.  It is not the job of the person being charged nor is it the job of three rabid partisan senators who do not have all the facts surrounding the case and have not practiced law in decades.  Mr. Holder is the most experienced Attorney General to ever hold the post so excuse us if we trust his judgement over the opinions of Sessions, Kyle, and Graham. It’s amazing that these senators argued their position so vociferously without any of the pertinent information required to give an informed and reasonable opinion.  A side note:  Sessions tone with Holder at one point during their exchange was a bit disconserting.  But I digress.  In addition and for the record Senators, your opinions are not worth the air used to utter them if you lack critical facts needed to render such opinions. 

One reason why Holder may have chosen the constitutionally created and tested federal court system over the military tribunals is because such tribunals have been ruled unconstitutional twice by the Supreme Court of the United States.  Though Congress believes that it has remedied the constitutional defects of such tribunals the congressional  fix has yet to pass a SCOTUS review.  This is not the case to TEST Congress’ handiwork.  The first challenge any defense attorney worth his/her fee would raise is the constitutionality of the tribunals….such challenges can drag on indefinitely.   With an Article III court that argument is off the table.  Such courts have been around afterall since the beginning of this Republic. In so, being tried in federal court reduces the likelihood of a guilty verdict being overturned because of the unconstitutionality of the venue and process.  Reasonable minds may differ but operating under blind and willful ignorance when criticizing a decision of this magnitude is just ignorant.

Another thing.  This criminal says that he would like to plead guilty in a military tribunal.  Senators Sessions, Kyle, and Graham did you bother to ask why KSM would so readily offer that up?  How about the possibility that he believes by pleading guilty in a military setting America then recognizes him and al-Qaida as a legitimate enemy state.  In other words, America then elevates and legitmizes al-Qaida and him in the eyes of the world as a legitimate and proper enemy state.  Whereas adjudicating him in the federal court system reduces KSM to the status of a common criminal and he is treated like every other common criminal being put through the system.  A heinous common criminal but a common criminal just the same.  Prosecuting KSM in the federal system will prevent him and his cohorts the satisfaction of being recognized as a legitimate enemy engaged in an act of war.  

One last question to the GOP senators…..  

Where was the outrage when the Bush administration decided that al-Qaida member and 9/11 highjacker Zacarias Moussaoui would be tried in Virginia?   That’s the silence of hypocracy that you’re not hearing.

Senator Harry Reid has finally managed to get a consensus on a health care reform bill.  The newly proposed Senate bill costs a mere $849 billion ($51B less than President’s mandate of $900B), reduces the deficit by $127 billion in 10 years, covers 94 percent of Americans (31 million more Americans), includes a public option with a state opt out provision, and contains a much weaker Stupak (anti-abortion) amendment.   

New Stupak compromise is as follows:

The Senate version would require at least one plan within the health insurance exchange that the bill sets up to offer a plan that covers abortion and one that doesn’t. It would also authorize the Health and Human Services Secretary to audit plans to make certain that abortion isn’t being paid for with federal dollars.

Read the health care bill (PDF) (Abortion amendment starts at 116, Community Health Insurance Option  (Public option)  and opt out provision begins on p. 182  (Sec, 1323)

In addition, according to a recent poll conducted by the Associated Press, 52 percent of Americans favor a public option while only 38 percent oppose a public plan.  The majority of Americans have spoken and delivered a mandate to Congress that the health care reform bill must include a public option.  Participants were also asked if they would favor the public option being available nationally or whether states should be able to opt out resulting in the following:

Poll participants were asked whether government insurance should be available to all, or whether state governments should be able to decide not to offer it. Seventy percent favored making it available nationally while 25 percent said state governments should be able to decide.

The bill obviously needs a bit more work when it comes to the opt out provision.

Wise words from the current Governor of Virginia Tim Kaine:

Kaine said the key to victory for Democrats in a highly competitive Virginia is recognizing that party members need not be “apologetic” about their affiliation to find success. He noted that about 200,000 more people voted in the Democratic primary for president on a frigid February day in 2008 than cast ballots for Deeds this year, and said McDonnell successfully spooked Deeds by suggesting that Virginians had grown anxious about the Democratic agenda.

“I think the issue of being nervous about the Virginia electorate was overdone and I think Creigh did exactly what the McDonnell campaign hoped he would do, which was distance himself from the president and national issues,” Kaine said.

We could not agree with Governor Kaine more.  The gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey a couple of weeks ago was a lesson to Democrats who take their base for granted.  This year’s gubernatorial races boasted the lowest turnout in modern government races.  Virginia turnout was less than half the percentage of the 2008 election and the lowest in forty years in the Commonwealth.  As for turnout of specific groups, Governor Kaine pulled 38 percent African-American turnout whereas Deeds only managed 27 percent.

Here are the stats from the Deeds vs. McDonnell contest: 

• Conservative turnout increased from 11 percent in 2008 to 21 percent in 2009
• Young adults turnout dropped from 20 percent in 2008 to 10 percent in 2009
• African-American turnout went from 20 percent in 2008 to 15 percent in 2009
• 3.7 million people turned out for the 2008 election as compared to 1.97 million turnout for 2009
• President Obama received 2 million votes to McCain’s 1.7 million in 2008.  Deeds only received .8 million votes total or 1.2 million votes less than Obama in 2008.  Deeds lost by 345,000 votes. 
• The Obama’s winning coalition in Virginia consisted of 40 percent African-American votes, 59 percent Caucasian votes and .5 percent Hispanic vote

Looking at the above statistics one would think that because Obama’s winning coalition relied heavily on the African-American vote that this would be a group high on the Deeds campaign’s priority list.  However, when we approached the Deeds campaign a few weeks prior to the election to inquire about its African-American outreach we heard crickets.  The Deeds campaign did not have any sort of task force in place to help galvanize the minority community.  As a result, black folks along with other Democrats stayed home. Never take a Democratic base for granted or you will be disappointed.

At least 45 percent of the Virginia electorate turned out for the 2005 gubernatorial race whereas only 40 percent turned out in 2009.  Deeds did not persuade Democrats that he deserved their vote and voting for him would be much better than not voting or allowing McDonnell to win.  Instead Deeds presented himself as a less capable version of Bob McDonnell.  Why vote for a fake Republican when you can have the real thing and a person to blame with impunity when it all goes wrong.  

Mr. Deeds also billed himself  a “Creigh Deeds Democrat” as opposed to an “Obama Democrat.”  The former candidate perpetuated this view with Virginia Democrats by distancing himself from Obama whenever possible.  One major rejection of the President’s policy agenda was when Deeds said that as Governor of Virginia he would opt out of the health care reform bill if given the opportunity.  One quick lesson to all Democrats and first stated by a freshman Congressman from Florida: You do not beat Republicans by becoming one.  And you certainly do not motivate the Democratic base or folks that voted the President into office a year prior by rejecting that same president’s policy agenda.  Are you listening Congressman Nye, Blue Dogs, and Conservadems?  Reject the policy agenda of the Democrats in favor of the special interest and there is a high probability that you will be looking for a new line of work come November 2010.

Remember fellow Democrats that if you water down this health care reform bill so that it is “reform” in name only or kill it via the Stupak (abortion) amendment you are jeopardizing your seat in Congress.  The same goes for financial reform.  President Obama said it correctly in New York when he said that Democrats “are an opinionated bunch.”   While the other side tends to do what they’re told, Democrats think for themselves.  Therefore, just because President Obama, as the head of the Democratic party, must campaign for you, free-thinkin Democrats will not vote for you if your words and deeds do not inspire us to do so.  We don’t show up just because you have a “D” next to your name.  Ask Mr. Deeds.

The United States has a health care crisis, an economic crisis, and is in the middle of two wars, yet the media is hyper-focusedobsessed with a book that is nothing more than sophomoric effort by a marginal former governor of Alaska whose primary goal is to become famous and wealthy.  Please STOP!

The media continues to ask the question that most Americans are NOT asking….is Sarah Palin running  for president in 2012?  NOOOOOOOOOO! She is not running in 2012 because she no longer needs politics to be a talk show host.  So no she is not promoting her book in battleground states because she is testing the waters for 2012.   Harper Collins chose battleground states because it KNEW that you, main stream media, would speculate whether the Alaskan  is running in 2012.  It is a promotional gimmick by a profit-oriented publishing company.  Yes main stream media you are a willing pawn in Harper Collins plan to sell as many books as possible.  The publishing giant is using political speculation to turn this juvenile and petty effort into a bestseller thanks to the Sarah-obsessed pundit class.

After years of hoarding the power to enact consumer protection rules that would prohibit banks from gouging customers through deceptive and abusive business practices, the Federal Reserve now decides (AFTER Sen. Chris Dodd proposed a bill that would strip it of  its supervisory powers) to pass a rule that prevents banks from automatically charging customers overdraft fees for debit and ATM transactions effective July 1, 2010.  That is unless the bank gets the customer’s permission to do so ahead of time.  The new rule does not apply to checks and electronic bill payments because the Fed has decided (we assume upon counsel from the banks) that customers would want these types of transactions covered.  Hey Fed, guess what?  Banks charge these fees even though they do not actually cover  the offending transaction.  So they charge the excessive fee for the mere attempt of the transaction.  Also, consumers are not stupid.  They know that the Fed’s primary responsibility is looking out for the viability and soundness of banks.  Consumers also know that this disingenuous “act of benevolence” allegedly being done on their behalf  is really designed to keep these abusive penalty fees contributing to the bottom line of the banking industry as long as possible.  The industry makes an obscene $25 to $35 billion yearly in overdraft fees.  So Mr. Bernanke, please do not do consumers any favors.  Make the rule apply to all transactions.  Banks should be required to get the customer’s permission before covering any type of transaction involving the imposition of an overdraft fee….PERIOD!

Another thing…why wait until July 1, 2010 to make the rule effective?  The banking industry has demonstrated how it exploits its customers when given a grace period.  So why give it NINE MONTHS????  Nine months to continue fee gouging customers even more than it is doing now.  The fact that the Fed, with full knowledge of the deceptive practices currently being engaged in by the industry, are delaying the effective date of such an important protection proves that consumer protection is not the Feds priority, the profitability of the banking industry is the Feds priority. 

This is a pathetic attempt by the Federal Reserve to maintain the status quo and prevent its consumer protection arm from being usurped and put in the hands of a regulator who will ACTUALLY use it for the benefit and protection of consumers.  The growing populist anger at the banking industry is what spurred this bone being thrown at consumers but it is a mere pittance in light of the offenses being perpetrated. 

Check out Sen. Dodd’s bill in contrast:

–Require banks to get customers’ consent before enrolling them in an overdraft protection program for ATM and debit card transactions.

–Limit the number of overdraft fees banks can charge to one per month and six per year.

–Require that fees be proportional to the cost of processing the overdraft.

–Require customers be notified, by e-mail, text or traditional mail, when they overdraw their account.

–Require that customers be warned if an ATM or teller transaction will overdraw their account.

Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced the best most succinct bill ever to be considered by Congress.  Take a look.

BILL

To address the concept of ‘‘Too Big To Fail’’ with respect
to certain financial entities.

1     Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
4     This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Too Big to Fail, Too
5      Big to Exist Act’’.
6 SEC. 2. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON INSTITUTIONS THAT
7                 ARE TOO BIG TO FAIL.
8     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not later
9     than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
10   Secretary of the Treasury shall submit to Congress a list of all commercial banks,investment banks, hedge funds,
2     and insurance companies that the Secretary believes are
3     too big to fail (in this Act referred to as the ‘‘Too Big
4     to Fail List’’).
5  SEC. 3. BREAKING-UP TOO BIG TO FAIL INSTITUTIONS.
6     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, begin-
7     ning 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the
8     Secretary of the Treasury shall break up entities included
9     on the Too Big To Fail List, so that their failure would
10   no longer cause a catastrophic effect on the United States
11   or global economy without a taxpayer bailout.
12 SEC. 4. DEFINITION.
13     For purposes of this Act, the term ‘‘Too Big to Fail’’
14     means any entity that has grown so large that its failure
15     would have a catastrophic effect on the stability of either
16     the financial system or the United States economy without
17     substantial Government assistance.

SHORT and to the point in language that ever American can understand.

Remarks of President Obama

Memorial Service at Fort Hood
November 10, 2009

We come together filled with sorrow for the thirteen Americans that we have lost; with gratitude for the lives that they led; and with a determination to honor them through the work we carry on.

This is a time of war. And yet these Americans did not die on a foreign field of battle. They were killed here, on American soil, in the heart of this great American community. It is this fact that makes the tragedy even more painful and even more incomprehensible.

For those families who have lost a loved one, no words can fill the void that has been left. We knew these men and women as soldiers and caregivers. You knew them as mothers and fathers; sons and daughters; sisters and brothers.

But here is what you must also know: your loved ones endure through the life of our nation. Their memory will be honored in the places they lived and by the people they touched. Their life’s work is our security, and the freedom that we too often take for granted. Every evening that the sun sets on a tranquil town; every dawn that a flag is unfurled; every moment that an American enjoys life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – that is their legacy.

Neither this country – nor the values that we were founded upon – could exist without men and women like these thirteen Americans. And that is why we must pay tribute to their stories.

Chief Warrant Officer Michael Cahill had served in the National Guard and worked as a physician’s assistant for decades. A husband and father of three, he was so committed to his patients that on the day he died, he was back at work just weeks after having a heart attack.

Major Libardo Eduardo Caraveo spoke little English when he came to America as a teenager. But he put himself through college, earned a PhD, and was helping combat units cope with the stress of deployment. He is survived by his wife, sons and step-daughters.

Read the rest of this entry »

This past weekend the House passed H.R. 3962 the health care reform bill.  This was a much tougher vote for some than others.  Though the pundits cite Rep. Cao of Louisiana as the sole Republican to vote for the health care bill as being courageous, we posit that it was Rep. Tom Perriello a Democrat representing the very red 5th district in Virginia who deserves the courage award.  Especially because Cao represents a majority Democrat African-American district in Louisiana thereby making his yes vote a matter of survival and conceivably completely within his own self-interest.  Perriello on the other hand, voted yes for the bill even though it is not the most popular piece of legislation amongst his very red constituents.  The 5th district in Virginia is the right leaning conservative district where Perriello unseated five-term Republican incumbent Virgil Goode by a mere 727 votes in the 2008 election.  Needless to say it was a tough vote for the freshman member and instead of voting his own self-interest Perriello voted his conscience. 

Perriello: “In the choice between solving a problem and sitting on the sidelines, I thought it was important to solve this problem.”  Perriello went further by saying   “I thought it was important to solve this problem because families are being crushed under the cost of skyrocketing premiums.”

Because of this courageous act Perriello will be vulnerable in 2010 and it is up to us to make sure that he keeps that seat.  The Congressman is holding a town hall telephone call on Thursday so if you live in the 5th District make sure that you call in a thank him for his support.  He is receiving a lot of flack from the very loud minority at the moment so voices of support from the majority will be very welcome.  We need more like him in Congress.

Also, a big thanks for NOTHING to Rep. Glenn Nye (Democratic Congressman representing the 2nd District in Virginia ).  Nye voted his self-interest and against the health care reform bill.  Apparently freshman Nye didn’t learn the lesson of Creigh Deeds.  Here it is again for those who missed it the first time.  If you do not give Democrats a reason to vote for you, meaning that in words and in votes you are no different than your GOP opponent, then Democrats will sit on there hands and their wallets in 2010.  Lets see how many of your newly found GOP friends will be knocking on doors for you next year.

For months the GOP has been attacking and obstructing the passage of the House health care plan drafted by the Democratic majority without ever having produced one of its own.  Well this week they did just that and submitted it to the Congressional Budget office to be scored.  Mind you the list of reforms was a compilation of oldies that the grand old party has been singing for decades.  You know…..selling insurance across state lines, medical malpractice reform, health saving accounts…yada yada yada.  Well the CBO scored the compilation and concluded that the GOP bill will cost billions more and cover substantially less people.

The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that under the $61 billion Republican amendment to the House health care bill, the number of uninsured Americans would increase to 52 million by 2019, but deficits would decrease by $68 billion over the 2010–2019 period. The bill could slightly reduce premiums for Americans who purchase coverage independently.

Millions of Americans would remain uninsured and continue to pay higher premiums. In fact it’s unlikely that any of the members of the Republican House Leadership would be able to find affordable insurance under their own proposal, should they chose to give up their government-sponsored plans.

What else is lacking you ask? For one, the plan does not prevent insurance companies from rescinding coverage when a person gets sick nor does it prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to people who have a pre-existing condition.  Not to mention this little tidbit:

By weakening or removing requirements that insurance cover certain services–everything from cancer screenings to mental health–the Republican bill would likely result in people getting insurance that covers less.

In other words, bupkus.  Thanks GOP for continuing to waste taxpayers money throughout this GOP lead boondoggle process.  Republicans believe that Americans should pay a premium for the illusion of health insurance.

After President Obama signed a credit card reform bill in May preventing the credit card industry from assessing arbitrary fees and interest rate hikes to consumers, the credit card industry responded by immediately and arbitrarily increasing interest rates, increasing fees, raising rates retroactively on existing balances,  etc. in an effort to maximize its profits and gouge consumers even more before the new rules take effect in February 2010.  A pew report revealed that every online credit card carrier was using some form of unfair and deceptive practice. 

One hundred percent of credit cards offered online by the leading bank card issuers continue to include practices that will be outlawed once legislation passed in May takes effect next year, according to a new report by the Pew Health Group’s Safe Credit Cards Project.  The report also found that advertised credit card interest rates rose an average of 20 percent in the first two quarters of 2009, even as banks’ cost of lending declined.

Well the House has responded to such tactics by moving up the start date to December 1, 2009.  The House moved the implementation date up to the day the President signs the bill into law.  The Maloney-Frank bill received wide bipartisan support in the final floor vote of 331 to 92.  Below is the current schedule given because the credit card companies deceptively claimed that they needed time to adjust their systems in order to implement the new rules.   

The current schedule. The first portion of the reform act went into effect in August, requiring banks to give 45 days notice on major changes to a contract, including rate hikes. Issuers must also give consumers 21 days notice before a bill comes due.

Also, customers now have the right to reject changes to their contracts — if they do so, they can pay off their balances at their existing rates within five years.

The second part of the reform is currently slated to kick in next Feb. 22. Major changes include prohibiting arbitrary rate increases on existing balances, and requiring that customers opt into the ability to overdraw their accounts.

The third portion is scheduled for Aug. 22, 2010. It calls for “reasonable and proportional” penalty fees, and would require that issuers review all interest rates and reduce them where warranted.

Thanks to the House now we need the Senate to pass this ASAP!

Democrat Bill Owens won the seat in New York’s 23rd District that Republicans have held for 120 years.  Though the GOP brought out their big guns that includes Sarah Palin, Fred Thompson, Tim Pawlenty, and Glenn Beck just to name a few.  Yet this very conservative district voted for a Democrat that had been caught flat-footed several times throughout his campaign for not having a command of the issues.  Democrats are surely grateful to teabaggers for not making the night a total loss.  In addition, the seat increases the Democrat majority in the House.

VOTE TODAY

Please vote in the gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey TODAY.  These are two very important races that the pundits will use to grade President Obama.  In addition, we have two very conservative Republicans running in opposition and Creigh (Cree) Deeds in Virginia and Jon Corzine in New Jersey NEED your help and YOUR vote.  The Virginia polls are open from 6am to 7pm Eastern Standard Time.  The polls in New Jersey are open from 6am to 8pm Eastern Standard Time.

If you have any issues voting in Virginia or need to locate your polling place click here or call 866 OUR-VOTE

If you have any issues voting in New Jersey or need to locate your polling place click here or call 800 792-VOTE(8683)

The House Financial Services Committee is on the path to reform by preventing banks and credit unions from engaging in the deceptive practice of covering checks in the order that will gain them the most in overdraft fees.  For example, if a consumer has three checks that come in but have only enough to cover either a single check or two smaller checks, the bank with pay the larger check regardless of whether it came in after the two smaller checks because bouncing the two smaller checks will enable it to impose two separate overdraft fees.  Overdraft fees are the largest consumer fee income for the industry primarily because banks make it easy for consumers to spend more than they have and then admittedly penalize them for it.  Several reps from large banks actually admit to doing this.  They give the consumer the money and then they actually say that the same consumer must be penalized in some way for taking it.  Unbelievable. 

The Committee also are initiating a requirement that forces the overdraft fees to be commensurate with the ACTUAL cost of covering the checks or purchase.  One of the panelist during the Committee hearing hit the nail on the head:

Jean Ann Fox, director of financial services for the Consumer Federation of America, said, “When a bank decides to lend money to consumers by letting a debit purchase go through that should have been denied, the fee is not a deterrent, it’s a profit center.”

Here is additional information from USA Today:

The House Financial Services Committee blasted banks and credit unions at a hearing Friday for routinely paying consumers’ overdrawn transactions, then charging them steep fees. These fees have bolstered banks’ balance sheets during the recession while turning debit cards — which the industry often advertises as a product to help you manage your money — into a debt trap for some consumers.

“Why are overdraft services the only ones where banks can take consumers’ money without their permission?” Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., said at the hearing. “How is this different from Burger King charging you for a burger you didn’t want?” 

Maloney has sponsored a bill with Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., requiring banks to get consumers’ permission before covering their overdrafts and charging them a fee. Currently, most banks will automatically enroll customers in these programs.

The legislation, which faces stiff opposition from the banking industry, would also cap the number of overdraft fees consumers can be charged and tie the fees to the transactions’ processing costs. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., has a similar bill pending in the Senate.

Representave Carolyn Maloney hopes to have the legislation on the President’s desk by Christmas.